"The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish. They
care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles,
Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as
D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews
get special treatment. Yet when they have power,
physical, financial or political neither Hitler
nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or
mistreatment to the under dog."

"The Jews have no sense of
proportion nor do they have any judgement (sic) on world
affairs. Henry [Morgenthau] brought a thousand Jews to New York on a
supposedly temporary basis and they stayed." (Harry Truman Diary, p.21)

For many in the Jewish community, Bush's presidency
could be encapsulated in his offhand quip to reporters in September1991during an AIPAC lobbying effort on Capitol Hill in
support of the proposed $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel: "I'm one
lonely little guy" up against "some powerful political forces" made up
of "a thousand lobbyists on the Hill." The comment triggered a spate of
antisemitic letters and comments for which the president later
apologized.

Would
Israel's Mossad actually consider assassinating an American president
perceived hostile to Israel? A former Mossad agent says "yes." According
to ex-Mossad man Victor Ostrovsky, the Israeli spy agency hatched a
plan to kill President George Bush.
If President John F. Kennedy
was killed by a conspiracy orchestrated—at least in part—by Israel's spy
agency, the Mossad, this evidently not be the last time that the Mossad
planned the assassination of an American president. According to former
Mossad agent, Victor Ostrovsky, elements of the Mossad were plotting an
attempt on the life of President George Bush. The reason: according to
Ostrovsky, Bush was hated by the Mossad and considered an enemy of
Israel.

This amazing revelation was published in the February 1992 edition of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
The author of the report was former Congressman Paul Findley (R-Ill.),
himself a prominent critic of Israel. (Findley's best-selling book, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby, is a classic exposition of the way Israel's lobby has worked to silence American critics of the foreign nation.)
Findley
reported that Ostrovsky had learned through his sources in the
intelligence community that because of President Bush's seeming
intransigence toward Israel's demands, the Mossad had begun coordinating
plans for the assassination of the American president.
Ostrovsky
relayed this information to several members of the Canadian parliament,
indicating that the Mossad and not Israel's elected leadership, is "the
real engine of policy in Israel." (8) One of those attending the meeting
with Ostrovsky passed the information on to another former U.S.
Representative, Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey (R-Calif.).
Upon learning of the potential threat to President Bush, ex-Congressman McCloskey himself flew to Canada where he met with
Ostrovsky. According to Findley: "Ostrovsky impressed McCloskey as a
patriotic Zionist who believes the Mossad is out of control. Ostrovsky
told him the present leadership of the Mossad wants 'to do everything
possible to preserve a state of war between Israel and its neighbors,
assassinating President Bush, if necessary." (9)
"He said a public
relations campaign is already underway in both Israel and the United
States to 'prepare public acceptance of [vice president] Dan Quayle as
president.' After lengthy discussion during which he became convinced
that Ostrovsky was 'real' and telling the truth, McCloskey took the next
flight to Washington.

"There he relayed the information to the Secret Service and State
Department, receiving mixed reactions to Ostrovsky's reliability. An
officer of the Navy Department dismissed him simply as a "traitor to
Israel."(10)

AMERICANS KILLED BY ISRAELI INTRIGUE

Findley points out that in his controversial book, By Way of Deception,
the aforementioned Ostrovsky documented a Mossad action which was
"especially shocking to American readers."(11) In that instance, 241 U.S.
Marines were murdered by a terrorist truck bomb that plowed into the
Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983.
Although Israeli agents learned
that the attack was impending, the Mossad headquarters in Tel Aviv
ordered its agents to ignore the threat and to not alert the American
servicemen to the danger. "We are not there [in Beirut] to protect
Americans," the Mossad leaders explained. "They're a big country. Send
only the regular information." According to Ostrovsky, the "regular
information" was "like sending a weather report, unlikely to raise any
particular alarm."(12)
"Is it conceivable," asks Findley, "that
Israel's Mossad might assassinate George Bush in order to put a more
sympathetic man in the White House? It is well to remember two earlier
occasions when Israeli authorities were willing to sacrifice American
lives to serve their own national interests." (13) Congressman Findley
points out two other occasions where Americans died or otherwise faced
extinction at the hands of Israel:

On June 8, 1967, naval and
air forces of Israel deliberately—and without provocation—attacked the
American spy ship, the U.S.S. Liberty killing 34 American sailors and
wounding 171 others. It was an attempt to destroy the ship and its
entire crew.

During the October 1973 war, Israeli pilots were
ordered to shoot down an unarmed U.S. reconnaissance plane that was
overflying Israel's secret nuclear bomb development site at Dimona. The
plane, however, flew too high for Israel's would-be assassins to reach.

Assessing
the potential threat to President George Bush, Congressman Findley
concludes, "The U.S. Secret Service will be wise to assume the
worst."(14)
Incredibly enough, at almost the same time Findley's
provocative report first appeared, several unusual events occurred that
seemed to give credence to the allegation that there might indeed be a
plot afoot to eliminate George Bush—if not physically, at least
politically. Each of these threatening incidents took place during
President George Bush's January 1992 trip to the Far East.
The most
notable incident, of course, was the President's bizarre public seizure
while dining in the company of the Japanese premier. More than a few
people speculated—privately—that the president might indeed have been
poisoned. This, of course, is speculation, but it is based in reality.
Interestingly, it was while the president was on his Far Eastern junket that The Washington Post—the
daily newspaper of record in the nation's capitol—inexplicably reversed
itself and began publishing a lengthy and glowing seven-part series
hailing Vice President Dan Quayle. Obviously this seems to be a
confirmation of Victor Ostrovsky's claim that preparations were being
made in the United States to make a Dan Quayle presidency palatable.The Post's
unusual flip-flop was made all the more potent when the news arrived
that the president had been stricken. Quayle, evidently, already had the
Establishment's support if he had been unexpectedly thrust into the
presidency. Oddly, prior to the Post's turn-about, the Washington daily
had been one of Quayle's most persistent critics. However, something
quite alarming also took place during that eventful week.

A SECURITY BREACH

For
two days, during President George Bush's visit in Seoul, South Korea,
top-secret information regarding the president's personal arrangements
was inexplicably made available to the public. Incredibly enough, this
was during a period when terrorist alert status was already high.
Security
experts believed that if potential presidential assassins had such
action in mind, the security breach would have assisted them
tremendously.
According to Robert Snow, a spokesman for the Secret
Service, "It wouldn't be stretching it"(15) to suggest that the security
lapse could have put Bush in danger. Blame for the lapse in security was
laid at the hands of the U.S. Information Service (USIS), a branch of
the State Department. For their own part, officials at the State
Department were unable to provide an explanation of the bizarre security
breach. The White House refused to comment.
The USIS published a
list of the names and hotel room numbers of the president's traveling
party, which numbered 471 people. (The fact that the president was
staying at the U.S. Ambassador's residence was part of the information
revealed.)

Included on the list were
the names and room numbers of 122 Secret Service agents, eight Marine
guards, four presidential stewards and six military aides. Also revealed
were security control room locations in the hotel where the president
was staying as well as the names of the 10 Secret Service agents heading
security at the various locations that the president visited while in
Korea. The room assignments of top administration officials accompanying
the president, as well as those of the thirteen corporate executives
along for the trip were also published. (16)
This incredible
revelation caused suspicion that perhaps there were those in positions
of power who may not necessarily have been concerned for the president's
safety. The tentacles of Israel's Mossad do reach far and wide—even
into the depths of the U.S. State Department. Was this breach of
security a first step in an assassination attempt—perhaps one to be
carried out by some obscure Korean terrorist group acting as a "false
flag" for the Mossad?
Retired Air Force Col. L. Fletcher Prouty,
himself an acknowledged authority on covert operations—including
assassination planning—says that one of the primary necessary measures
in any assassination plot is the process of removing or otherwise
breaching the intended victim's blanket of security. Prouty, who worked
in presidential security with the military, knows whereof he speaks.
According to Prouty, "No one has to direct an assassination—it happens.
The active role is played secretly by permitting it to happen . . . This
is the greatest single clue . . . Who has the power to call off or
reduce the usual security precautions that are always in effect whenever
a president travels?" (17)

IF IN 1991, WHY NOT IN 1963?

In
his 1994 book, The Other Side of Deception, Mossad man Victor Ostrovsky
finally revealed the specifics of what he had learned of the 1991
Mossad plot against Bush: the Mossad planned to assassinate Bush during
an international conference in Madrid. The Mossad had captured three
Palestinian "extremists" and leaked word to the Spanish police that the
terrorists were on their way to Madrid. The plan was to kill Bush,
release the "assassins" in the midst of the confusion—and kill the
Palestinians on the spot. The crime would be blamed on the
Palestinians—another Mossad "false flag," more about which we will learn
in Chapter Three. (18)

SOME HISTORICAL SPECULATION

Frankly,
there have been those who have suggested, in the wake of the
publication of the first edition of Final Judgment, that President
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in fact, may himself have been the first
American president to die at the hands of the intelligence network that
ultimately evolved into Israel's Mossad. They point out, based on
well-documented historical evidence, that FDR may have been a genuine
roadblock in the way of the establishment of a Jewish state in
Palestine.
It is known that Saudi King Abd al-Aziz Ibn Saud met with
FDR on board a U.S. Navy ship on February 14, 1945 when the American
president was returning from the famous Yalta Conference. There,
according to former American diplomat Richard Curtiss, the Saudi king
"exacted assurances from the President that he would 'do nothing to
assist the Jews against the Arabs and would make no move hostile to the
Arab people.'" (19)
After that meeting, according to Curtiss, FDR
"told friends that in a few minutes of conversation with the Saudi
monarch he learned more about the Palestine situation than he had
learned in all of his previous life. His new knowledge did not prevent
him, however, from authorizing a U.S. Zionist leader to state that the
President still favored a Jewish state and unrestricted Jewish
immigration into Palestine.
"Then, as the Arabs reacted with angry
questions, he authorized the Department of State to reaffirm his pledge
to Ibn Saud and other Arab leaders that there would be prior
consultation with the Arabs as well as the Jews before the U.S. took any
action related to Palestine." (20) One week later FDR was dead.

In fact, two authors known for their devotion to the Zionist
cause—John Loftus and Mark Aarons—have stated candidly that many friends
of Israel do believe that FDR's death was quite fortuitous: "Although
American public opinion was favorable toward Jews, few Zionists trusted
Roosevelt entirely . . . As several leading Zionists admitted, if
Roosevelt had lived, it is unlikely that Israel would ever have been
born. They knew what they were talking about.” (21)

AN INTERESTING FOOTNOTE IN HISTORY . . .

We
could speculate forever about how FDR really died. However, we do
know—based on a very reliable source—that FDR's successor, Harry Truman,
was in fact the target for assassination because he was perceived
hostile to Zionist interests. According to Margaret Truman, daughter of
the late president, the Jewish underground terrorist movement in
Palestine known as the Stern Gang once tried to murder her father.
In
a biography of her father Miss Truman discussed the attempt on her
father's life by Puerto Rican nationalists. Then, in a little-noticed,
but highly significant aside she commented: "I learned in the course of
my research for this book that there had been other attempts on Dad's
life, which he never mentioned . . . In the summer of 1947, the
so-called Stern gang of Palestine terrorists tried to assassinate Dad by
mail . . .” (22)
The Jewish terrorists, it seems, had sent the
president letters that had been tainted with toxic chemicals.
Fortunately, the mail was intercepted and no harm was done. Harry
Truman, of course, got the message, though, and rushed to recognize the
state of Israel upon its founding in 1948, despite his own reservations
and those on the part of his diplomatic advisors.

This
clumsy attempt to kill Truman is interesting, to say the very east, and
points to a proclivity for political violence on the part of the
Israeli leaders in the Stern Gang whom, it should be pointed out, were
the very individuals who emerged as the leaders of the Mossad following
the establishment of the state of Israel.

A PATTERN OF EVIDENCE . . .

Very
clearly, there is strong evidence—indeed a pattern—to suggest that
Israel would indeed consider the assassination of an American president.
With this in mind, let us move forward and examine the evidence which
will lead us toward a final judgment.

Ledeen
goes on to suggest that anyone who stands in opposition to all-out war
against the Arab world needs to be removed from positions of authority.
He writes:

The
president has to rid himself of those officials who failed to lead
their agencies effectively, along with those who lack the political will
to wage war against the terror masters. The top people in the intelligence community need to be replaced,
and those military leaders who tell the president that it can’ t be
done, or they just aren’ t ready, or we need to do something else first,
should be replaced as well, along with the people in the national security community who insisted that we must solve the Arab-Israeli question before the war can resume and the top people in agencies like the FAA, the INS, and so forth. (95)

In
fact, aside from other political considerations, President George W.
Bush had good personal reason to do the bidding of the hard-line hawks
in promoting their imperial schemes on behalf of Israel.

In the Feb. 1992 edition of The Washington Reporton Middle East Affairs,
former Rep. Paul Findley (R-Ill.) revealed that in 1991 former Israeli
intelligence officer Victor Ostrovsky had blown the whistle on a plot by
a right-wing faction within Israel’s Mossad to kill then-President
George H. W. Bush who was perceived as a threat to Israel.

After
Ostrovsky provided the details to another former member of Congress,
Pete McCloskey (R-Calif.), McCloskey conveyed a warning to the U.S.
Secret Service. In his 1994 book, The Other Side of Deception,
Ostrovsky revealed the specifics of what he had learned of the plot: the
Mossad planned to assassinate Bush during an international conference
in Madrid.

The
Mossad had captured three Palestinian “extremists” and leaked word to
the Spanish police that the terrorists were on their way to Madrid. The
plan was to kill Bush, release the “ assassins ” in the midst of the
con- fusion — and kill the Palestinians on the spot. The crime would be
blamed on the Palestinians — another Mossad “false flag.”

So
it is that the George W. Bush administration is now fostering and
nurturing the ancient dream of a Greater Israel. But to achieve that
aim, the neo-conservative Zionist elements that achieved power in the
Bush administration began laying the groundwork many years before.

The date is December 3, 1972, and it’s right there in a headline of the Tri-City Herald, the newspaper that serves Pasco-Kennewick-Richland in the state of Washington: “Jews sent President Truman letter bombs, book tells.” The newspaper picked up the article, we see, from the Associated Press (AP).

Not only does the article carry the authority of the AP, but the book in question bears the authority of none other than President Harry Truman’s own daughter, Margaret. It is her biography of her father, entitled simply Harry S. Truman, and at the time the article was written, the book had just been published. The passage in question—a long paragraph that begins on page 489 and ends on page 490 (pp. 533-534 of the paperback edition)—is in a section on threats and attempts on President Truman’s life. Note that she misidentifies Anthony Eden as Foreign Secretary, which he had not been since 1938. Later, of course, he would become Prime Minister. Ernest Bevin was Foreign Secretary in 1947, and he was the primary target to the assassination attempts:

In the summer of 1947, the so-called Stern Gang
of Palestine terrorists tried to assassinate Dad by mail. A number of
cream-colored envelopes about eight by six inches, arrived in the White House,
addressed to the President and various members of the staff. Inside them
was a smaller envelope marked “Private and Confidential.” Inside that
second envelope was powdered gelignite,
a pencil battery and a detonator rigged to explode the gelignite when the
envelope was opened. Fortunately, the White House mail room was alert to
the possibility that such letters might arrive. The previous June
at least eight were sent to British government officials, including Foreign
Secretary Anthony Eden. The British police exploded one of these
experimentally and said it could kill, or at the very least maim, anyone
unlucky enough to open it. The mail room turned the letters over to the
Secret Service and they were defused by their bomb experts. The Secret
Service still screens all our mail.

The AP article also reminds us that the news of the aborted attack on Truman did not originate with Margaret Truman, some quarter century after the fact. It had been reported in far greater and more accurate detail by White House staff mail reader Ira R. T. Smith (with Joe Alex Morris) in his 1949 book, Dear Mr. President … The Story of Fifty Years in the White House Mail Room. Fortunately, that entire book is now online here. This is from pp. 229-230:

On another occasion, in the summer of 1947 I was
summoned back to Washington from my vacation because controversy over important
issues, including the Palestine question, had greatly increased the volume of
mail to the President. I was rather surprised that the volume should be more
than could be handled routinely by the office but when I got back I found that
not all the difficulty was due to volume. Some of the letters received
had obviously been intended to kill.

There had been a flurry in England in June of that
summer because eight or more government officials and political personages had
received terrorist letters in which explosives were cleverly concealed.
Among those who got such letters were Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, Colonial
Secretary Arthur Creech Jones, President of the Board of Trade Sir Stafford
Cripps, and former Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden. Cripps’s secretary
noticed that the letter he received was hot (police said later it was
apparently about ready to explode) and he stuck it in water. Eden carried
his letter unopened in his briefcase for twenty-four hours before a secretary,
tipped off by police, found it. There were two envelopes, the outer one
about eight by six inches and cream-colored. The inner envelope was
marked “Private and Confidential,” presumably in an effort to see that it was
opened by the man to whom it was addressed. Inside the second envelope
was powdered gelignite, a pencil battery, and a detonator arranged to explode
when the envelope was opened. Police exploded one experimentally and said
that it was powerful enough to kill a man. The so-called Stern gang of
Palestine terrorists later claimed responsibility for having sent the letters
from its “branch in Europe.” The letters were postmarked from
Italy.

The same kind of terrorist letters had been found in
the White House mail, and as a result the staff had been handling all letters
with great care, thus slowing up the routine. So far as I know none of
those received in this country resulted in an explosion, which may have been due
to the excellent system introduced for handling the White House mail during the
war.

Why Kill Truman?

Addressing the second question first, the reader can’t help but note that the books use the identical vague term “Stern Gang of Palestine terrorists” to refer to the perpetrators. One might get the impression that they were Palestinian terrorists, except for the fact that the Stern Gang is well known as a Jewish extremist group with a long string of murderous outrages to its credit (or discredit, if you prefer). Both accounts at least tell us that the White House bombs were part of a pattern, that similar attempts had previously been made by the Stern Gang upon various British officials. But their common purpose in telling us this is to explain why the White House was on alert for such bombs and was successful in interdicting them. They don’t give us the slightest clue as to why the bombs might have been sent in the first place.

In 1946 the British were still in political control of Palestine, formerly ruled by the Ottomans, under an arrangement created in the wake of World War I and approved by the League of Nations in 1923. Prior to WW I, it should be pointed out, Palestine had been part of the Muslim Ottoman Syria since 1516, more than a century before the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, and before that it had been part of the Muslim Mamluk Empire centered in Egypt. The Zionist movement, led primarily by Jews from Eastern Europe, was determined to drive the British out and terrorism of all sorts—assassinations, kidnappings, bombings, extortion, etc.—was at the very core of the effort.

The problem with the British was that they were carrying out their commitment under the Balfour Declaration far too conscientiously. As a means of gaining support from world Jewry, especially in the United States and Russia, against their enemies in World War I, which included the Ottomon Empire, the Balfour Declaration endorsed the idea of a Jewish home (not the Zionist objective of a “homeland” or “state”) in Palestine (still at that time under Ottomon control), “it being clearly understood that nothing [would be] done which [would] prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine….”

The Zionists wanted massive Jewish immigration from Europe and total political control of Palestine, with the apparent eventual goal of supplanting the entire non-Jewish population from the area. Such policies would certainly have been—and have been—prejudicial in the extreme toward the rights of the locals, and the British refused to institute them, incurring the murderous wrath of the terrorist Stern Gang, which counted future Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir (born Icchak Jeziernicky) among its leaders and its brother in terror, Irgun, one of whose leaders was future Prime Minister Menachem Begin (born Mieczysław Biegun). Why British government officials, and Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin in particular, would have been targeted for killing by the Zionist terrorists can be well appreciated by reference to Bevin’s Wikipedia page.
Although the attempted assassinations in Britain were unsuccessful, the terror campaign against the British worked. The British gave up their mandate and turned the whole question of Palestine’s future over to the United Nations to decide. Under heavy pressure from the United States, the majority of the UN General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and non-Jewish sectors. This final arrangement, according to Bevin, was “…so manifestly unjust to the Arabs that it is difficult to see how we could reconcile it with our conscience.”

Terror had worked on the British, but why would anyone have thought it necessary against President Truman, of all people? With a village and an institute named for him there, he is regarded today as a hero in Israel for defying almost all his foreign policy advisers and recognizing the new Jewish state of Israel as soon as David Ben Gurion declared its existence in May of 1948. But in the summer of 1947 it was far from a foregone conclusion that Truman would come through for the Zionists. Some idea of his thinking on Palestine at the time can be gleaned from a letter he wrote to a friend, Edward W. Pauley, on October 22, 1946:

That situation is insoluble in my opinion. I
have spent a year and a month trying to get some concrete action on it.
Not only are the British highly successful in muddling the situation as
completely as it could possibly be muddled, but the Jews themselves are making
it almost impossible to do anything for them. They seem to have the same
attitude toward the “underdog” when they are on top as they have been treated
as “underdogs” themselves. I suppose that is human
frailty. –Robert H. Ferrell, Harry S. Truman, A Life (1994),
p. 307.

Some more evidence of his thinking in 1946 can be had from Truman’s memoirs:

My efforts to persuade the British to relax
immigration restrictions in Palestine might have fallen on more receptive ears
if it had not been for the increasing acts of terrorism that were being
committed in Palestine. There were armed groups of extremists who were
guilty of numerous outrages. On June 16 eight bridges were blown up near
the Trans-Jordan border, and two other explosions were set off in Haifa.
The following day there was a pitched battle between Jews and British troops in
Haifa, other explosions had started a fire and caused great damage in the rail
yards there. British officers were kidnapped. Others were shot at
from passing automobiles. Explosions took place in ever-increasing
numbers, and the British uncovered a plot by one extremist group to kidnap the
British commander in chief in Palestine. –Memoirs of Harry S. Truman,
Vol. 2, Years of Hope (1956). pp. 150-151

Many of the signals being picked up by the Jewish leadership in the United States, as Truman expressed his exasperation over their heavy pressure campaign, could easily have made their way to the Stern Gang, persuading them that in this Missouri Baptist from a relatively humble background they had an American Bevin on their hands:

In June of 1946 he at first refused to see a
delegation of all the New York Congressmen, and finally received them only with
obvious impatience. He was no better when the two Senators from the
state, [Robert] Wagner and [James] Mead, brought a former member of the Anglo-American
Committee of Enquiry (into Palestine) to see him. “I
am not a New Yorker,” Truman is alleged to have told them. “All these people
are pleading for a special interest. I am an American.” – Roy Jenkins, Truman
(1986), p. 117

Particularly offensive to Truman was the attitude of
Rabbi
Abba Hillel Silver of Cleveland, who, with Stephen Wise,
was co-chairman of the American Zionist Emergency Council. A Republican
and close ally of Senator Taft, Rabbi Silver had helped write a pro-Zionist
plank in the 1944 Republican platform. At one point during a meeting in
Truman’s office, Silver had hammered on Truman’s desk and shouted at him.
“Terror and Silver are the causes of some, if not all, of our troubles,” Truman
later said, and at one Cabinet meeting he reportedly grew so furious over the
subject of the Jews that he snapped, “Jesus Christ couldn’t please them when he
was on earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck.” --David McCullough,
Truman (1992), p. 599

Why Don't We Know?

In 2006 The Times of London had what appeared to be a blockbuster revelation: “Jewish terrorists plotted to assassinate Ernest Bevin, the foreign secretary, in 1946, as part of their campaign to establish the state of Israel, newly declassified intelligence files have shown.” Five terrorist cells from the Stern Gang and Irgun were planning to descend upon London with bombings and assassinations, the MI5 files are said to have shown, but, in the end, only some 20 letter bombs were sent, with Bevin and his Tory predecessor Anthony Eden mentioned as among the recipients.

The interesting thing here is that these are treated as brand new revelations, available only because some secret files have finally been declassified. But as we have seen, the essential facts about the letter bombs in Britain had been published—with even more detail given—in a book in the United States in 1949 and then repeated in outline form in a book by none other than the daughter of the American president. Another interesting fact is that the 2006 story in The Times was not picked up by a single mainstream news organ in the United States and was even taken down from The Times’ web site within a couple of weeks. The only reason we still have the full story up on the Internet is that it was picked up by the alternative news organ Information Clearing House (“news you won’t find on CNN,” indeed).

The Wikipedia page on the letter bomb is doubly revealing. First, for anyone entertaining the fantasy that a mere bomb small enough to be contained in a mail envelope is too trivial a thing to be treated as an assassination attempt, the list of historical examples given is instructive. The Unabomber, Theodore Kaczynski, killed three people and wounded 27 others with his mailed bombs, and the list is full of other instances of people killed or seriously maimed by them.

Perhaps even more interesting is that as of the date of the publication of this article, eighteen examples of the use of letter bombs are given, but the attacks on such important figures as Truman, Bevin and Eden are not mentioned. The list even includes an attack on a U.S. vice president in 1915. Since anyone can put information on Wikipedia as long as it meets that page’s requirements for credibility—which the foregoing revelations certainly do—what we must conclude is that even with the 2006 report by The Times and the 1972 book by Margaret Truman, the fact of Zionist terrorist letter-bomb attacks on major political leaders in Great Britain and the United States is still hardly known by anyone.

We have noted how the U.S. press suppressed the relatively recent news of the attempts on Bevin and Eden. Writers of history (or is it their publishers?), at least in the United States, are at least as guilty of withholding this information. Perhaps I did not search diligently enough, but the only Truman biography that I could find that mentioned the letter bomb attack on Truman was that of his daughter. All those biographies that I consulted were written after hers, and, for some reason, they apparently found this attempted assassination unworthy of mention.*

Even someone as generally well informed about high level skulduggery as this writer had his scholarship diminished by his ignorance of the revelations in the Margaret Truman and Ira R. T. Smith books. When I learned of the Zionist attacks on Bevin et al., I wrote Part 4 of “Who Killed James Forrestal?” subtitled “Britain’s Forrestal,” and included a section that reflected my ignorance entitled “Who Knew?” It is worth repeating in its entirety here:

Although it is apparent that those
signers of the warning letter
to The New York Times had no knowledge of the
previous attempt on the life of Ernest Bevin, one must wonder who, outside the
ranks of British intelligence, did know about it. In particular, we have
to wonder if one so connected to the higher reaches of power in the world as
Bernard Baruch, when he warned his friend Forrestal in February of 1949 that he
had already become too identified with opposition to Israel for his own good, knew
more than he was telling about the danger that Forrestal faced. And when
Forrestal complained about being followed and bugged, did he know that the
Irgun crowd had come pretty close to snuffing out the life of his British
counterpart? Could such knowledge have been behind his resistance to
commitment to Bethesda Naval Hospital and his reported claim that he would
never leave the hospital alive when he attempted to get out of the car taking
him there? Might that have been the revelation from Secretary of the Air
Force Symington on the day of Forrestal’s departure from office that drove him
into his sudden funk?

And after Forrestal’s death, could
there have been any doubt in the minds of those aware of the attempt on Bevin
who had ultimately been behind the later crime? Might these have included
those powerful friends such as Ferdinand Eberstadt and Robert Lovett, who had
failed to visit him in the hospital and then, when the results of the
investigation of his death were never made public, failed to register any
public complaint? At the very least, those in the know included the
contemporary and future leaders of Great Britain, and the knowledge that the
leaders of the United States government had conspired with Zionist thugs in the
assassination of the one courageous voice of reason in their midst would very
likely have animated their own future Middle East policy.

Now we can see that those questions almost certainly answer themselves. Not only would such connected, well-informed people as Baruch, Forrestal, Eberstadt, and Lovett, have known about the Zionists’ attempts to kill Bevin, they would in all likelihood have known about the attempts on Eden and Truman as well. But thanks to the controllers of information and molders of opinion in our society, most of the rest of us did not know. Not only was my scholarship undermined by the general blackout of the news of the attempted Truman hit, but so, too, was that of Alison Weir, as reflected in her January article, “Bush and Obama? Assassination and U.S. Presidents.” Her article is about the public suggestion of a Jewish leader in Atlanta that Israel might consider assassinating a U.S. president deemed “unfriendly to Israel.” She observes that such a thing might not be all that farfetched by citing a 1992 article by former Representative Paul Findley of Illinois in which he alleges that Israel, in fact, had pretty advanced plans in 1991 to assassinate President George H.W. Bush and blame it on Saddam Hussein. She notes, as well, that former Stern Gang leader Yitzhak Shamir was prime minister of Israel at the time. How much stronger would her case have been had she known about the attempt on Truman!

Even David Duke, in his video, “Israeli Deception against America,” as he details Israel’s terrorist attacks against the United States, seems to be unaware of the attempt on the life of our president, unless his failure to mention it rests on the technicality that in 1947 the state of Israel was still a year away from its creation.

Reflecting on these matters, we are more and more convinced of the truth of the quote by Abraham Lincoln, with which we lead off “America’s Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster,” “In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.” And molding public sentiment begins with controlling public information. On no subject is information more controlled and public sentiment more manipulated than the subject of Israel and Palestine. Why don’t we know about the attempt by the Stern Gang on the life of Harry Truman? That’s why.

Coercion and Bribery

Information control might take care of the general public, but that is hardly sufficient for our elected representatives. On Palestine, as we learn from his memoirs, Truman was amply informed by his foreign policy advisers and by Arab leaders. For our politicians, Anthony Lawson has charged, the Zionists mainly use coercion and bribery. Few things are more coercive than assassination, or even an assassination attempt, and if Gore Vidal and John F. Kennedy are to be believed, Truman was strongly influenced by that other measure as well. *

The situation is just as bad when it comes to Bevin. The most balanced book we were able to find at our local library on the Israel-Palestine question has this slanderous speculation about Bevin’s motives, “…he may have shared many of the vulgar anti-Jewish prejudices of his working-class background, a background he had not forgotten.” -- Ian J. Bickerton and Carla L. Klausner, A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 4th ed. (2002), p. 79.

But on the subject of attempts on his life, which are not matters of speculation, the book is silent.

David Martin

May 10, 2012, with reader-prompted change on May 12 of “homeland” to “home” in British Balfour Declaration promise.

Addendum

We have discovered further evidence of how little known is this 1947 assassination attempt on President Truman. There is a Wikipedia page entitled “List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots.” Many, if not most of those listed could hardly be regarded as serious assassination attempts. Nevertheless, as of the date of this writing, it has no mention of the Stern Gang’s attempt on Truman.

The Stern Gang was also treated with unusual deference within certain quarters in the U.S. body politic for a group that had attempted to kill the national leader. The following passage is from an undated article in the Jewish Post entitled “The Last Campaign How Truman Won in 1948”:

[Henry] Wallace
attracted many Jews: around 30% of his followers were Jews. Among them his
fund-raiser, William Gailmore, was an ex-rabbi. He controlled the Bronx thanks
to Leo Isaacson who was elected to the congress as a member of the progressive
party. Many communists and Jewish communists supported Wallace who always was
blamed as a front for Moscow. But Wallace did something else, he never forgot
to declare his support of Zionism and a Jewish state. On Dec. 1947, he visited
Palestine as a guest of the Labor movement. Wallace also believed in the Judeo-Christian
idea and a project to develop the Middle-East for Jews and Arabs alike.
Furthermore, he helped the 'Friends of Lehi in the U.S." (the so-called
'Stern Gang.') And Karabell wrote that on July 23, 1948 the Progressive Party's
convention hosted "the Stern Gang, the Israeli underground paramilitary
organization that had blown up buildings and assassinated British officials in
Palestine..." He wrote that the Lehi (Freedom Fighters of Israel) were
close to the Irgun's Menachem Begin, but Yitzhak Shamir was the Lehi's
commander together with Natan Yellin-Mor and Israel Eldad. Truman was pushed by
his pro-Zionist advisors (Mark Cliford) [sic] to support Israel
in 1948 in order to attract the Jewish vote away from Wallace's camp. Also,
Dewey was pro-Zionist.

It is certainly outrageous that there should even have been an open organization in the United States that would call itself “Friends of Lehi,” a gang that openly admitted to such crimes as the assassinations of lead UN mediator for Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden, and British Minister of state in the Middle East, Lord Moyne. That they would be “helped” and their support would be openly welcomed by a candidate for president of the United States is even more outrageous, though from what we know of Wallace, it is quite believable. However, it is not believable that he would have been so close to them had their 1947 letter bomb attempt upon the life of the president been reported.

“We prefer to stay out of the public eye. We don’t want AIPAC to become the issue.”
– ROBERT ASHER, Former president and chair of AIPAC board, Oct. 1, 1988, Jerusalem Post. Int. Ed.“A lobby is like a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun.”
– STEVEN ROSEN, former foreign policy director, AIPAC, The New Yorker, July 4, 2005; indicted August, 2005 for alleged violations of the Espionage Act but charges were later dropped.

By a curious coincidence, as Russian president Vladimir Putin was
rescuing President Obama from public humiliation last week, leaving the
American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to take a rare public
drubbing over its failure to reverse Congressional opposition to a US
attack on Syria, the 22nd anniversary of AIPAC’s last defeat went unnoticed.
On the morning of September 12, 1991, Pres. George Herbert Walker
Bush awoke in frustration. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was
refusing Bush’s request to delay for 120 days his country’s demand for
$10 billion in US loan guarantees, ostensibly for the resettlement of
Soviet Jews, and to freeze Jewish settlement construction as a condition
for receiving the guarantees.
To make matters worse, the former Polish-Jewish terrorist and now
Israeli prime minister, not the American president, had the backing of
both houses of the US Congress.
Although the subject of the guarantees had been discussed with Israel
that March, Bush feared that approving them a month before regional
Middle East peace talks were scheduled to begin in Madrid would drive
the Arab invitees away from the table and kill the “peace process”
before it had even begun.
Aware that Congress was ready to override his threatened veto of the
authorizing legislation, Bush took the unprecedented step of putting the
issue before the American public, the same sleeping giant that
vanquished AIPAC last week.
Congress, as usual, was ready to jump through Israel’s hoops whatever
position the president took. That’s the way it was then in Washington
and the way it is now when the American people have been excluded from
the discussion.
On September 6th, Bush issued a statement explaining his
reason for the postponement, adding, presciently, his belief that “the
American people will support me in this” and that he was “going to make
the position clear to every single member of Congress and to the
American people.”
Ignoring the president’s appeal, Senators Robert Kasten, (R-WI) and
Daniel Inouye (D-HI) introduced legislation to provide the full $10
billion without conditions.
When Bush announced he was asking for the delay, “”Inouye was not
equivocal at all,” recalled Israeli Defense Minister, Moshe Arens, who
was in Washington at the time. He said, ‘I am putting on my yarmulke;
we’re going to war.” [1]
(Inouye’s first job after leaving the Army in 1947 was as a salesman
for State of Israel Bonds. As chair of the Senate Select Committee
investigating the Iran-Contra scandal in 1987, he was responsible for
Israel’s name not being mentioned. At the time of the arrest of Israeli
spy, Jonathan Pollard, he was about to propose that what remained of
Israel’s debt to the US be forgiven.)
By Sept. 12, Bush knew he had to act quickly as AIPAC had mobilized
more than a thousand Jewish lobbyists in Washington intending for them
to visit every congressional office.[2] His solution: to hold a nationally televised press conference, and ask the public to back him up.
The impact on the Hill was immediate, as was graphically described in the Washington Jewish Week. (Sept. 19, ’91)
Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski, a long time darling of the liberal
Democrats, (and who last week was ready to support an attack on Syria),
had just promised a group of the Jewish lobbyists her support for the
guarantees when she was interrupted by an aide who handed her a note.
Mikulski’s face “went ashen,” wrote the WJW reporter, “I’ve
just learned,” she told the lobbyists, “the president said he’s taking
his case for a 120-day loan guarantee to the American people.” The
American people? The very last folks that AIPAC and Congress wanted
included in their deliberations.
Here is how Arens described the historic event:

“Bush hastily called a press conference and made an
extraordinary televised appeal to the American people. Visibly angry,
pounding his fist on the lectern, he made it appear that Israel’s
insistence on the guarantees was a threat not only to the forthcoming
conference but to peace itself.
“’A debate now could well destroy our ability to bring one or more of
the parties to the peace table… If necessary I will use my veto power
to keep that from happening.’
“Then the president took direct aim at the pro-Israel lobby. ‘We are
up against some powerful political forces… very strong and effective
groups that go up to the Hill.’
“‘We’ve only got one lonely little guy down here doing it… [but] I am
going to fight for what I believe. It may be popular politically but
probably not… the question isn’t whether it’s good for 1992 politics.
What’s important here is that we give the [peace] process a chance. And I
don’t care if I only get one vote… I believe the American people will
be with me.’
“Then, his voice rising, the president said ‘ Just months ago,
American men and women in uniform, risked their lives to defend Israelis
in the face of Iraqi Scud missiles, and indeed Desert Storm, while
winning a war against aggression, also achieved the defeat of Israel’s
most dangerous adversary.’
“He also added that, during the current fiscal year, ‘despite our own
economic worries,’ the United States had provided Israel with more than
$4 billion worth of aid, “nearly one thousand dollars for each Israeli
man, woman, and child.” [3]

Never before had an American president addressed the public with such
frankness and none has since. Polls taken afterward indicated that
Americans supported Bush by a 3-1 margin and half of those responding
opposed providing any economic aid to Israel.
Two weeks later, a NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey showed
that while by 58 to 32% voters favored aid to the new, friendlier Russia
and by a margin of 55% to 29%, aid to Poland, voters opposed
economic support to Israel by 46% to 44%. Moreover, 34% saw Israel as
the greatest impediment to peace in the region while only 33% saw the
Arab nations in that role. [4](Emphasis in original)
On the day after Bush’s press conference, Tom Dine, AIPAC’s executive
director, declared “September 12 a day that will live in infamy,” but
the lobbying organization had gotten the word as had Tel Aviv. It was
not that AIPAC was afraid to challenge the president but, given the poll
numbers, it knew it was no match for Bush when the American people
stood behind him.
Fast forward to last week. In poll after poll, Americans across the
political spectrum were rejecting Pres. Obama’s call for war, and if
that did not concern AIPAC it did worry the members of Congress,
particularly those facing re-election in 2014.
By Tuesday, before Obama’s speech, only a minority of both parties
was ready to vote for war, a situation that would have obliged Obama to
ask for a postponement of the House vote even if the Russians had not
provided him with an escape hatch. In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry
Reid, (D-NV) who a week earlier had scheduled a vote for Sept. 11, had
already done that after taking a head count.
With a war-generated multi-trillion dollar deficit, a stagnant
economy with understated unemployment figures, and nothing to show from
12 years of war but tens of thousands of American soldiers dead,
permanently disabled or suffering from PTSD, and both the Middle East
and Southeast Asia totally destabilized, the American people, across the
entire political spectrum, have had quite enough of America’s military
misadventures.
Members of Congress were made aware of that by their constituents and
the polls and AIPAC could offer no counter arguments except to warn
about America’s loss of “credibility” and the message of weakness it
would send to Iran.
AIPAC’s humiliation was described by MJ Rosenberg, a former AIPAC staff member and now one of its sharpest critics.
“The lobby is reeling,” he wrote. “Reports from Capitol Hill reveal
that AIPAC’s big lobbying day for war with Syria changed no votes. Not
one. Meanwhile two of its closest allies, Sen. Ben Cardin and Rep. Henry
Waxman changed their position on bombing from “yes” to undecided.”
AIPAC is not, of course, about to fold it tent and depart the field
following this setback nor did it following its defeat in 1991 when it
launched a war of attrition on President Bush, determined to undermine
his popularity with the public which, like today, was experiencing hard
economic times.
Rather than pressing the fight for the loan guarantees in the face of
the public opposition, both Israel and AIPAC agreed to wait 120 days
before again addressing the issue but Tel Aviv would make no concession
on Bush’s demand for a settlement freeze. In the interim one could
detect a steady increase in the media of articles critical of Bush’s
handling of the presidency and, particularly, the economy, which was
clearly in bad shape, but not wholly his fault.
Six months later, Bush was still unwilling to approve the loan
guarantees if Israel did not agree to a settlement freeze, a position
that alarmed the New York Times’ Tom Friedman. (March 22, ’92)
“The fact that an American president would reject loan guarantees for
Israel—in an election year—and find overwhelming support for his
position in all national polls, suggests that Israel is badly out of
step with the public mood.”
Affirming Friedman’s opinion, a Wall Street Journal poll the
same month found that while 73% of those responding said the loan
guarantees should be linked to the ending of the settlements,
approximately half said the loan guarantees should be denied under any
circumstances.
Nevertheless, Israel’s supporters in Congress, some heavily dependent
on pro-Israel money, began champing at the bit and in the Senate, on
April 1, 1992, in order to allow senators to “get on the record for
Israel,” four and a half hours were devoted to a “sense of the Senate”
resolution (S. Res. 277) calling for approval of the loan guarantees.
The resolution was brought to the floor by the late Frank Lautenberg
(D-NJ) whose lengthy speech laid out the arguments that would be
repeated by his colleagues throughout the session.
“For years, the United States fought for the right for Soviet Jews to
emigrate. We put our prestige and our trade benefits on the line for
that policy. For years, there was not a high-level meeting between an
America and Soviet Union official that took place in which unfettered
emigration was not raised…..I believe we have a moral obligation to help
resettle these people from the former Soviet Union; these refugees who
seek freedom….
“Mr. President, by insisting on linkage with the settlements, the
administration has injected the United States into the peace
negotiations….now he continues to cling to this policy.
“Now the administration reportedly is putting pressure on European
allies to deny credit guarantees to Israel as long as she does not
accept a settlement freeze. That is a new wrinkle that does not deserve
to be there.”
It was a con job from beginning to end and Lautenberg and his fellow
senators knew it. The packaging of the loan guarantees as “humanitarian
assistance” was a political spin that been invented by the Jewish
establishment the previous year to deflect attention and criticism from
Israel’s settlement activity.
An internal memo from the Council of Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations obtained by the Washington Jewish Week
(June 6, ’91) emphasized that “stories of Soviet Jews” would be used to
“help put the issue in a humanitarian rather than a political context
to prevent President Bush from linking the guarantees to Israel’s
settlement policy,” an effort that clearly failed.
As Lautenberg’s position was repeated throughout the day on the
Senate floor, it became evident that it was the only arrow in the
Lobby’s quiver.
Since Al Gore came a hanging chad or two from becoming president just
eight years later and went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, it
is worth examining excerpts from his remarks:
“The stakes here are immense,” said Gore. “For Israel, this is
nothing less than a defining moment. With the access to credit that the
United States can provide, Israel can not only house its new citizens
but eventually harness their skills….failure to meet this challenge
means that the dream of Israel as the homeland for oppressed Jews cannot
be met.
“Failure will create tens of thousands of Israeli citizens
disaffected from the Israeli state; not just the immigrants,” he wailed,
“but Israelis who are already in place whose lives are going to be
powerfully influenced by this flood of new people.”
At the time, with the US suffering from 7.3 % unemployment, Gore
seemed unconcerned with Americans who might have grown disaffected from
the American state.
He went on to speak of the “bitter deadlock” between Bush and Shamir,
noting that “the US Government’s position is very stark. It can be
paraphrased as follows: First, if Israel agrees to completely stop any
settlement activity, the administration would support loan guarantees of
up to $2 billion a year for five years; however, if Israel only halts
new construction, but continues to develop old construction, then the
administration will support no more than $1 billion a year, with
provision to deduct money spent on old construction from the $1 billion.
That, in my view, is a drastic position and the administration has
insisted upon it…
“I do not think the Congress supports the administration,” said Gore.
“But neither does the Congress have any means to break this stalemate
on its own,” a tacit acknowledgement that Bush had the American public
behind him and that he and his fellow senators did not.
On the other side, in support of the president’s position, the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) stood alone.
In what may have been the most well-informed speech ever made on the
floor of Congress on the subject of Israel-US relations, one that,
predictably, went unreported in the national media, Byrd noted that
“this proposed program would ask the American taxpayer to cosign a total
of $10 billion in investment guarantees intended to prop up this
unstable foreign economy at a time when we are telling the American
people that we cannot afford to invest at home.
“Last week,” he continued, “the Senate failed to pass S.2399, a
measure that would have allowed us to move savings from the defense
budget into the domestic discretionary accounts in order to fund
desperately needed investment infrastructure, housing, and job training,
among other areas. These are exactly the kinds of programs that Israel
will fund with this $10 billion loan that we are being asked to
guarantee.”
Despite the moralizing about what Americans owed Russian Jews by
supporters of the loan guarantees, Byrd saw gaping flaws in the
proposal.
“The American people are apparently being asked to underwrite major
new economic growth programs for Israel when we cannot develop them for
our own desperate-in-need economy. We are being asked to guarantee
funding for wide-ranging infrastructure projects, running far afield
from anything directly connected to Soviet immigration, at a time when
United States spending on its own infrastructure is far lower than that
being infused by our European allies into their economies. It is no
wonder that foreign aid is held in such disrepute by the American
people.”
Byrd warned his fellow Senators that, according to a document
provided by the Israeli Embassy, “Absorption of Soviet Jewry
Immigration,” at least half of the money would not have anything to
do with the immigrants “but would go to the private sector for
investments and the rest would be divided equally between housing and
infrastructure.” The rest of his colleagues, in thrall to AIPAC, weren’t
listening.
The Senate vote on the non-binding resolution was 99 to 1. Since Byrd
passed away in June, 2010, there has yet to be another senator with the
guts to vote against an AIPAC supported resolution.
In Israel, it had become apparent that Shamir’s stubborn refusal to
place a freeze on settlement construction had damaged its relations with
Washington which the Israelis, at that time, held in higher regard than
they apparently do today. In the parliamentary elections that June,
Likud was swept from power and a less confrontational Yitzhak Rabin took
Shamir’s place as prime minister.
In August, 1992, with his re-election chances slipping and the vote
three months away, and accused in the media by fellow Republicans of
taking the side of the Palestinians, Bush agreed to the loan guarantees
with the proviso that the amount of money that Israel was spending in
the Occupied Territories be deducted from the total.
Arens, the America-educated Likudnik, summed up Bush’s defeat by Bill
Clinton from an Israeli perspective not essentially different from his
American Jewish counterparts:
“His administration’s repeated attempts to interfere in Israel’s
internal politics had been without precedent in the history of relations
between the United States and Israel… Although in the months after the
Likud defeat Bush gave Rabin everything he had withheld from Shamir,
including the loan guarantees, he could not dispel the impression that
his administration had been hostile to Israel.
“Bill Clinton had narrowly defeated Bush for the presidency of the
United States. The vast majority of the Jewish community of America, as
well as many non-Jews who were dedicated to the US-Israel alliance,
could not bring themselves to vote for George Bush.
“The Bush administration’s confrontational style with Israel,
especially the withholding of the loan guarantees, had contributed to
the Likud’s defeat and, considering Rabin’s slim margin of victory,
might well have been decisive. Now, it seemed as if the same policy had
also contributed to the Bush defeat.”
“By January, 1993, Clinton was in the White House and US-Israel
relations resumed their normal course. The new president was clearly
well disposed towards Israel. Rabin now had a free hand and could feel
sure of Washington’s support for virtually whatever policies he chose to
follow.[5]
Arens may have been correct. In 1988, Bush Sr. had received an
estimated 35% of the Jewish vote. That percentage dropped to 12% in 1992
and may have spelled the difference between victory and defeat.
When Congress has had to choose between providing funds for Israel
and for America’s cities, it has strictly been no contest. Whereas, by
the summer of 1992, 240 members of the House had signed a letter urging
Pres. Bush to quickly submit legislation authorizing the $10 billion in
loan guarantees to Congress, only 35 of her House colleagues joined Los
Angeles’s Maxine Waters in co-sponsoring a bill, H.R. 5747, on July 31,
1992, which would have authorized the granting of $10 billion in
development loan guarantees to American cities.
Waters’ had attempted to add the domestic loan guarantees to the
“Freedom Support Act,” authorizing assistance to the former Soviet Union
and Eastern Europe, but was stymied when the House adopted a closure
rule by a voice vote which prevented amendments from being added to the
bill.
In defense of her proposal, Waters stated: “We are on the brink of
funding aid to Russia and a $10 billion loan guarantee for Israel. I
certainly understand the difficulties faced by Russia — their economy
has collapsed — and Israel — they must absorb tens of thousands of new
immigrants. However, our cities deserve preference… I would hope to see
this plan adopted before we aid any foreign government.” Only AIPAC’s Near East Report, on Aug. 17, 1992, carried the story. One can imagine what might have happened had it been reported by the mainstream media.
In 1991, when Waters circulated her letter, the US economy was much
like it is today. Six out of ten US cities were unable to meet their
budgets and several states their payrolls. In March of that year, over
the objections of President Bush, the House voted by a 397-24 margin to
give Israel $650 million in cash as part of the Gulf War emergency
spending bill. Bush had publicly threatened to veto the bill but backed
down when he realized it would be overridden.
Another glaring example occurred in 2002 when the Senate, after
defeating a bill that would have provided $150 million for inner-city
schools that had been impacted by the attack on 9-11, turned around and
tucked an additional $200 million for Israel into the Homeland Security
Bill as if Israel had been targeted that day and not New York and
Washington.
Four years later, writing in the Jerusalem Post, (2/4/96),
under the headline, “So Much for Promises,” David Bedein asked,
“Remember those loan guarantees to help immigrants? They have been used
to further conspicuous consumption instead.”
“[N]one of the $5 billion which has already been provided to Israel
under the loan guarantees packages” he wrote, “has been used by the
Israeli government for direct immigrant economic development.
According to Bedein, the loan guarantees gave Israel’s banking system
greater liquidity and willingness to extend credit to corporations,
small businesses and private individuals.
“Thanks to the guarantees,” he pointed out, the banks have been able
to provide generous loan terms, so that Israeli consumers can more
easily purchase automobiles, foreign travel packages, or speculate on
the stock market.
Some $800 million of the loan guarantees was used for the expansion
of the Israel Electric Corporation which had been privatized, some went
to the expansion of Israel’s road system and another $200 million was
allocated for planning a Tel Aviv subway.
Bedein noted that in May, 1994, Natan Sharansky, the Russian Jewish
émigré, who was heading a coalition of immigrant organizations, accused
the Israeli government of misusing the loan guarantees, saying it would
have been difficult to campaign for the loans under the slogan, “Let
them build highways.”
For members of the US Congress, of course, who approved the loan
guarantees, it wouldn’t have made any difference. Unless there is an
aroused public that says a loud, “No!,” and is ready to hold Congress accountable,
as we have seen with the opposition to launching an attack on Syria,
what the Israelis want from the US, the Israelis will get. AIPAC’s
existence is based on helping them get it. Ours may be determined on our
willingness to expose the ways it does it.
If we want to prevent Congress from approving a US attack on Iran,
which is uppermost on Israel’s agenda, last week’s victory tells us
where to start. Given America’s penchant for war, it may be short lived,
but its importance should not be minimized.
At the very least, it should breathe new life and hopefully stimulate
a new, creative leadership in the long moribund anti-war movement.Jeffrey Blankfort is a journalist and radio host currently living in Northern California. He can be contacted at jblankfort@earthlink.net
Notes.
1 Broken Covenant: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis Between the US and Israel, Simon & Shuster, NY, 1995, p. 246
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid. 246-247
4 Benjamin Ginsberg, Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, Univ. of Chicago, 1993, p.220
5 Arens, op. cit. pp. 301-302

"The
attacks on New York and
Washington were an Israeli-engineered attempt at a coup against the
government of the United States"

General
Hamid
Gul

RAWALPINDI,
Pakistan -- The retired Pakistani
general who is closest to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden contends
the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington were
the work of renegade U.S. Air Force elements working with the
Israelis. Gen. Hameed Gul led Pakistan's Inter Services
Intelligence during the war against the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan. Gul serves as an adviser to Pakistan's extremist
religious political parties, which oppose their government's
decision to support the United States in any action against
Afghanistan's Taliban regime. Gul contends bin Laden had nothing to
do with the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, saying
instead that they were the work of the Mossad, the Israeli
intelligence service -- a version of events that has been endorsed
by Islamic fundamentalist clerics and is widely accepted by Muslims
throughout the Arab world.

Here is the transcript of the
exclusive interview Gul gave to Arnaud de Borchgrave, United Press
International editor at large:NEWSWEEK
WEB EXCLUSIVE, Sep. 14, 2001

Gul:
Mossad and its accomplices. The U.S.
spends $40 billion a year on its 11 intelligence agencies. That's
$400 billion in 10 years. Yet the Bush Administration says it was
taken by surprise. I don't believe it. Within 10 minutes of the
second twin tower being hit in the World Trade Center CNN said
Osama bin Laden had done it. That was a planned piece of
disinformation by the real perpetrators. It created an instant
mindset and put public opinion into a trance, which prevented even
intelligent people from thinking for themselves.

Q:
So you're already convinced bin Laden
didn't do it?

A:
I know bin Laden and his associates. I've
been with them here, in Europe and the Middle East. They are
graduates of the best universities and are highly intelligent with
impressive degrees and speak impeccable English. These are people
who have rediscovered fundamental Islamic values. Many come from
the Gulf countries where ruling royal families have generated
hatred by the way they flout divine law, wasting billions on
gratifying their whims, jetting around in large private jets by
themselves, and sailing the Mediterranean in big private boats for
weeks on end. Osama's best recruits come from feudal areas that are
U.S. protectorates and where millions of poor people are seeking
human dignity. I have even visited a Christian convent school in
Murree, 60 miles from here, where my 13-year-old daughter is
studying. The young girls there have told me Osama is their hero.
Osama's followers identify with Mujahideen freedom fighters
wherever they are defending Islam and its values.

Q:So what makes you think Osama wasn't behind Sept. 11?

A:
From a cave inside a mountain or a peasant's hovel? Let's be serious. Osama inspires countless millions by standing up for Islam against American and Israeli imperialism. He doesn't have the means for such a sophisticated operation.

Q:Why Mossad?

A:
Mossad and its American associates are the
obvious culprits. Who benefits from the crime? The attacks against
the twin towers started at 8:45 a.m. and four flights are diverted
from their assigned air space and no air traffic controller sounds
the alarm. And no Air Force jets scramble until 10 a.m. That also
smacks of a small scale Air Force rebellion, a coup against the
Pentagon perhaps? Radars are jammed, transponders fail. No IFF --
friend or foe identification -- challenge. In Pakistan, if there is
no response to IFF, jets are instantly scrambled and the aircraft
is shot down with no further questions asked. This was clearly an
inside job. Bush was afraid and rushed to the shelter of a nuclear
bunker. He clearly feared a nuclear situation.Who could that have
been? Will that also be hushed up in the investigation, like the
Warren report after the Kennedy assassination?

Q:At this point, someone
might be asking
what you've been smoking. What is Israel's interest in such a
monstrous plot, which, of course, no one believes except Islamist
extremists who concocted this piece of disinformation in the first
place, presumably to detract from the real culprits?

A:Jews never agreed to Bush 41 (George H.W.
Bush, the 41st president) or 43 (his son George W. Bush, the 43rd
president). They made sure Bush senior didn't get a second term.
His land-for-peace pressure in Palestine didn't suit Israel. They
were also against the young Bush because he was considered too
close to oil interests and the Gulf countries. Bush senior and Jim
Baker had raised $150 million for Bush junior, much of it from
Mideast sources or their American go-betweens. Bush 41 and Baker,
as private citizens, had also facilitated the new strategic
relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran. I have this from
sources in both countries. So clearly the prospect of a Bush 43 was
a potential danger to Israel.

Jews
were stunned by the way Bush stole the election
in Florida. They had put big money on Al Gore. Israel has given its
imperialist guardian parent opportunities to turn disaster into a
pretext for imposing an all-encompassing military, political and
economic agenda to further the cause of global capitalism. While
Colin Powell is cautious and others are reckless and want to make
up for their failure to defeat Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War 10
years ago, the global agenda is the same.

Israel
knows it has a short shelf-life before it is
overwhelmed by demographics. It is a state that was born in
terrorism that terrorized Palestinians into the exile of refugee
camps, where they have now subsisted in squalid refugee camps, and
is now very much afraid of Pakistan's nuclear capability.

Israel
has now handed the Bush family the
opportunity it has been waiting for to consolidate America's
imperial grip on the Gulf and acquire control of the Caspian basin
by extending its military presence in Central Asia. Bush
conveniently overlooks -- or is not told -- the fact that Islamic
fundamentalists got their big boost in the modern age as CIA assets
in the covert campaign I was also involved with to force the
Soviets out of Afghanistan. Bush senior was vice president during
that entire campaign. And no sooner did he become president on Jan.
20, 1989, than he summoned an inter-agency intelligence meeting and
issued an order, among several others, to clip the wings of ISI
(Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence) that had been coordinating
the entire operation in Afghanistan.I know this firsthand as I was
DGISI at the time (director general, ISI).

Q:So how do you read U.S.
strategy in
Pakistan?

A:
The destabilization of Pakistan is part of
the U.S. plan because it is a Muslim nuclear state. The U.S. wants
to isolate Pakistan from China as part of its containment policy.
President Nixon's book "The Real War" said China would be the
superpower of the 21st Century. The U.S. is also creating hostility
between Pakistan and Afghanistan, two Muslim states to reverse the
perception that the Islamic world now has its own nuclear weapons.
Bush 43 doesn't realize he is being manipulated by people who
understand geopolitics. He is not leading but being led. All he can
do is think in terms of the wanted-dead-or-alive culture, which is
how Hollywood conditions the masses to think and act.

All
summer long we heard about America's shrinking
surplus and that the Pentagon would not have sufficient funds to
modernize for the 21st century. And now, all of a sudden, the
Pentagon can get what it wants without any Democratic Party
opposition. How very convenient! Even your cherished civil
liberties can now be abridged with impunity to protect the
expansion of the hegemony of transnational capitalism. There is now
a new excuse to crush anti-globalization protests.

Bush
43 follows Bush 41. Iraq was baited into the
Kuwaiti trap when the U.S. told Saddam it was not interested in his
inter-Arab squabbles. Two days later, he moved into Kuwait, which
was an Iraqi province anyway before the British Empire decreed
otherwise. Roosevelt baited the Pearl Harbor trap for the Japanese
empire, which provided the pretext for entering World War II.

And
now the Israelis have given the U.S. the pretext
for further expansion into an area that will be critical in the
next 25 years - the Caspian basin.

Q:
Were you a fundamentalist in the days of the war
against the Soviets in Afghanistan when you worked closely with the
CIA?

A:
Not as much as I am today.

Q:What turned you against
America?

A:
Betrayals and broken promises and what was
done to my army career.

Q:And what was that?

A:
President Ishaq Khan, who succeeded Zia
ul-Haq after his plane was blown out of the sky, wanted to appoint
me chief of staff, the highest position in the Pakistani army. The
U.S., which by then had clipped ISI's wings, also blocked my
promotion by informing the president I was unacceptable. So I was
moved to a corps commander position. As ISI director, I held the
whole Mujahideen movement in the palm of my hands. We were all
pro-American. But then America left us in the lurch and everything
went to pieces, including Afghanistan.

The
U.S. pushed for a broad-based Afghan government
of seven factions and then waved goodbye. Even in the best of
democracies, a broad-based coalition does not work. So we quickly
had seven jokers in Kabul interested in only one thing, jockeying
for power. The gunplay quickly followed, which led to the creation
of Taliban, the students of the original Mujahideen, who decided to
put an end to it.

Q:What happened to the
1,000
shoulder-fired Stinger anti-aircraft missiles that were supplied by
president Reagan in 1986 and 87 to the Mujahideen, and that
literally grounded the Soviet air force?

A:
After the Soviets pulled out, the CIA
allocated $60 million to try to buy them back. This just drove the
black market price up for one Stinger from $100,000 to $300,000.
The Taliban still have about 250 of them for the kind of situation
they face today against U.S. aircraft.

Q:Is the U.S. now your
enemy?

A:
Is the U.S. national interest in
contradiction with the Muslim world? The U.S. needs oil, as do its
European allies. You have between 6 and 8 million American Muslims
and their ranks are growing. About the same number in Europe.
Israel aside, we are America's natural allies. Prof. Sam Huntington
in his "Clash of Civilizations" puts Confucius and Judeo-Christians
in one corner, and us in the other. His prescription is wrong but
is being adopted by Bush 43 who has now put 60 countries on his hit
list. This is the diabolical school that wants to launch an
anti-Muslim "crusade." Muslims understood what Bush meant when he
used that word.

We
need a meeting, not a clash, of civilizations. We
are on the brink of disaster. It is time to pull back from the
brink and reassess before we blow ourselves up. The purpose of
Islam is service to humanity. The time for like-minded people to
have a meeting of the minds is now.

Q: But
you are against democracy, so how can there
be a meeting of the minds?

A:
Democracy does not work. Politicians are
constantly thinking of their next election, not the public good,
which means, at best, constantly shading the truth to hide it from
their constituents. Their pronouncements are laced with lies and
the voters are lulled or gulled into believing utter nonsense. (...)UPI United
Press International, September 26, 2001, Interview with General
Gul

(...)However, the primary reason behind
Ben-Gurion's departure was the Israeli leader's inability to pressure
JFK into accepting Israel's demands. According to Hersh: "There was no
way for the Israeli public . . . to suspect that there was yet another
factor in Ben-Gurion's demise: his increasingly bitter impasse with
Kennedy over a nuclear-armed Israel." (143) Ben-Gurion had failed. The
battle had been lost, but the war between the two men was still to be
won.
A MODERN-DAY HAMAN?
What was on Ben-Gurion's mind as he
turned over the reins of government to his successor? What was David
Ben-Gurion's final act as Prime Minister of the Jewish State? In light
of Ben-Gurion's explicit comment to John F. Kennedy that "my people have
the right to exist . . and this existence is in danger," we can
certainly make a good presumption.
In Ben-Gurion's eyes, John F.
Kennedy was clearly a modern-day Haman—an enemy of the Jewish people. In
Jewish folklore, Haman was a descendant of the Amalekites who served as
prime minister to King Ahasueros of Persia. It was Haman who sought to
convince the king that all of the Jews of his empire should be
exterminated forever.
However, according to legend, a beautiful
Jewish temptress named Esther used her feminine wiles on Ahasueros and,
in the end, it was Haman who was instead put to death. The important
Jewish holiday of Purim celebrates the deliverance of the Jews from
Haman's intended holocaust.
In the Bible—Deut 25:19, I Sam. 15:8—the
ancient Hebrews were urged to "blot out the memory of the Amalekites"
from whom Haman descended.
In Israel—in 1963—David Ben-Gurion
certainly looked upon John F. Kennedy as a modern-day Haman, a son of
the Amalekites. As he pondered the brutal conflict with JFK, Ben-Gurion
no doubt remembered the meditation that is read on Purim:
"A wicked
man, an arrogant offshoot of the seed of Amalek, rose up against us.
Insolent in his riches, he digged himself a pit, and his own greatness
laid him a snare. In his mind he thought to entrap, but was himself
entrapped; he sought to destroy, but was himself speedily destroyed . . .
he made him a gallows, and was himself hanged thereon."
(...)
THE COMING OF THE MESSIAH
With
John F. Kennedy lying in a grave in Arlington National Cemetery, Israel
was safe—for the time being at least. The modern-day heir of Haman's
legacy had been destroyed. That Lyndon Johnson—a man with a steadfast
history of loyalty to Israel and its American lobby—was in line to
assume the American presidency was a fact not gone unnoticed. Israel's
messiah had come.
(...)"CONCLUSION:Operation Haman? The Theory That Works"(...)
Was there a code name for the conspiracy
against President Kennedy? More than likely. But we, of course, will
surely never know its name. Did the Mossad, perhaps, call it "Operation
Haman"—naming the conspiracy to kill the American president after Haman,
the ancient Amalekite conspirator who desired the destruction of the
Jewish people? That code name would be as reasonable as any, considering
Ben-Gurion's hatred for Kennedy—a modern-day Haman in his eyes.
(...)
In
1979 when Connally launched a well-financed bid for the 1980 Republican
presidential nomination, he publicly challenged the power of the
Israeli lobby in a highly controversial speech that, by all accounts,
led to the end of Connally's presidential ambitions once and for all.
But
what is interesting is that Connally' s speech was considered so
inflammatory by the Israelis and their Americans supporters that a
prominent Israeli educator and philosopher, Emmanuel Rackman, president
of Bal Ilan University, actually called for Connally's assassination.
Comparing
Connally to Haman, the ancient enemy of the Jewish people, Rackman—a
rabbi—issued his call for Connally's assassination in the November 18,
1979 issue of The Jewish Week-American Examiner, the publication of the
Israeli-government owned Jewish Telegraph Agency, a subdivision of the
worldwide Jewish Agency.
Rackman's vicious attack on Connally was
headlined: "John Connally Campaign Seen as Dire Threat to Israel and
U.S. Jewry." Rackman quoted New York Times columnist William Safire as
having said that for "the first time, a candidate for President has
delivered a major address which he knew would disturb and dismay every
American supporter of Israel."(986)
Rackman commented: "This is true.
But does not this observation signify more than it says? Does it not
mean that in Connally we have, for the first time, a candidate who in no
uncertain terms is telling the American people that he does not want
the support of Jews and that he wants to prove that one can be elected
president without Jewish support.
"Furthermore, does it not mean that
at long last we have a candidate who hopes to get elected by mobilizing
support from all who share his total disregard of how Jews feel about
him and is this not an invitation to all anti-Semites to rally behind
him? I am generally not an alarmist but nothing in American politics in
recent years so disturbed me as Connally's subtle communication to Jews
that they can `go to the devil.' Even the Nixon tapes were not so
upsetting.
"The American Jewish community must be alerted. If only we
had stopped Hitler early enough, millions of Jews would still be alive.
And Connally must be stopped at all costs. He must not even get near
the nomination! He must be destroyed, at least politically, as soon as
possible.
It is sufficiently early to make Connally look ridiculous and destroy him politically without bloodshed.
"Perhaps
I am overreacting," said Rackman. "But if I have learned anything
especially from the rabbinic view of Biblical history it is that we are
less fearful and more forgiving of enemies who at least accord us a
modicum of respect than we are of enemies who treat us with disdain,
with contempt. That makes Arafat more acceptable than Connally." (987)
Rackman
compared Connally with Amalek, another foe of the Jewish people:
"'Remember Amalek,' we are told. 'Don't forget.' Eradicate him from the
face of the earth. Simply because Amalek had no respect for us. He
encountered us in his path and casually sought to exterminate us as
vermin.
It is my fervent prayer," said this Jewish religious leader,
"that American Jewry will not minimize the importance of the challenge
they have been given and will act speedily and with devastating
effectiveness."(988)
John Connally was not eradicated as Rackman
urged. But his political career came to a halt after the major media
began a campaign against him.
However, when John Connally died in
1993, the doctors said that Connally's fatal lung condition was a direct
outgrowth of the chest wounds that he had received in the shooting in
Dallas on November 22, 1963. So ultimately, in the end, John Connally
did prove to be yet another victim of Israel—as much as if he had died
on the same day as John F. Kennedy.